Sunday, March 30, 2014

grossju - Project 009

Knowledge Patterns


Fill Surfaces


A fairly straightforward fill surface was the first object to be contoured with UDF's.  The fill surface above receives 5 to 25 UDF contours.

various positions and projections of contour lines on the fill surface


Closed Multi-Section Surfaces


The closed multi-section surface above receives 5 and 25 contours.  For a closed multi-section surface.  The previous method of projecting a line doesn't work.  Instead, I created a series of parallel planes that intersect the surface, creating a closed line at the intersection of the two.

The multi-section surface was formed with a series of 3 splines.


UDF's are composed of a point at a certain position on a vertical line, a plane positioned at the point that is normal to the vertical line, and a line formed by the intersection of the multi-section surface and the plane.



Open Multi-Section Surfaces


The open multi-section surface above receives between 5 and 25 contours.  The same method of using planes to form intersection lines was used here, but in this example, none of the sketch planes are parellel to the intersecting planes.  This means that not every intersection line stretches all the way across the surface.  As you can see in the image above, some intersection lines stretch across the entire surface while some only stretch across a corner.

Two sketches were drawn and then combined to form a spine for the sketch planes.


Three planes were positioned normal to the spine.


Sketches for sections of the surface were then drawn on the planes.


A multi-section surface was created with the three sketches.


A straight line was drawn from one extreme of the surface to the other.  I intentionally drew it off axis to the z-axis.


UDF's are composed of a point at a certain position on a this line, a plane positioned at the point that is normal to the line, and a line formed by the intersection of the multi-section surface and the plane.



Saturday, March 22, 2014

Grossju - Project 008 Reading Response

This week's readings discussed the algorithm's relationship to the human and the computer.  The formation of the algorithm, as defined by the reading, is not dependent on the computer, nor is it completely known by the human.  Instead, it works as a language between the human and the computer.

The readings provided a number of reasons why architects have been slow  to adopt true algorithmic design for their work.  One of the discussions I found most interesting with regard to this was that architects see fixed relationships between numbers and concepts as "too deterministic."  The practice has always been reliant upon variation and options, and designers feel that they lose that when algorithms are implemented.  Engineers are perhaps after the opposite, seeking solutions in "rationalistic determinism."  To me, the readings seem to imply that this isn't necessarily the only outcome of algorithmic design.  Properly written and structured, the algorithm can provide some of the non-deterministic flexibility that architects need.

Another interesting discussion was that of combination of humanistic theories with computation.  The author claims that by maintaining the same design theories we have used since the 60's, we will never take full advantage of what the computer has to offer.  Concepts such as numerical processing can hardly be justified when the goal of design is to cater to the human.  My initial thoughts on this subject are "Why even bother," but I'm not actually convinced the author is advocating for design that is completely exclusive of the human.  I think he is trying to say that by insisting that all design is justified before it is fully explored, we will never give ourselves the freedom to try everything computation has to offer.  If we instead give something like numerical processing a shot, we might find that it has unforeseen cultural potential.

Grossju - Project008

Smart Powercopies


For the smart powercopies project, I created a revolve shape that populates a rough spherical shape.


The revolve shapes are created with a revolving spline and an axis line.  The second point is situated away from the original point with a parameter controlling its x, y, and z offset.  All three variables are given a random value between -3 and 3.


The third point involved in the revolve defines the arc of the spline.  Its x position is 1/8 of the value that sets the x position of the second point.  Its y position is 1/8 of the value that sets the y position of the second point.  Lastly, its z position is the same value that sets the z position of the second point.




The revolve is powercopied and situated onto each point of the framework.


Random values between -3 and 3 were then assigned to each x, y, and z parameter for each powercopy.  This meant that each powercopied revolve shape would have its own size and its own direction.


The area of the surface of each revolve shape was then tracked by an area parameter within the powercopy.  A rule was written so that the color of any surface with an area value greater than an area parameter called "threshold area" would be changed from red to yellow.


Sunday, March 16, 2014

Grossju - Project 007


For project 007, I created a collection of developable surfaces that are unrolled onto an adjacent flat plane.  As the 3D structure is modified, the nested, flat surfaces are updated simultaneously.




The structure is formed by stacked circular sketches with 8 intersecting spokes.  The offset distance between each layer can be modified with a distance parameter.  Changing this parameter changes the entire aggregation and every associated surface.




The extrusion distance of each component is driven by the angle created by the original face and and a flat XY plane.




The angle is fed through a series of unit conversion parameters to achieve an appropriate unit of distance.


Parameters 

Unit Conversion Equation


Each edge of the resultant face is then inset by 2ft.  Multi-section surfaces are then created between the original three edges and the new extruded and inset edges.  The three multi-section surfaces are joined into a single surface and then unrolled.

Grossju - Project 007 Reading Response

The central theme of this text seemed to be on the emergence of the model and the prototype in the context of increasingly availability and affordability of fabrication tools.  No longer is fabrication software and equipment limited to corporate powerhouses and design schools.  As more and more designers take advantage of these tools, we have also seen an emergence of models and prototypes.  Burry spends a fair amount of time delineating between the two, which I found to be somewhat unproductive and irrelevant.  One immediately assumes the difference between the two terms to be scale, however Burry quickly diminishes that thought by providing the example of his full-scale models of Sagrada Familia columns which were constructed to study design details and proportions.  Burry then steers the debate towards a matter of design intent and seems to claim that models are constructed in order to test the construction or appearance of something, while a prototype is construction in order to refine something, working toward a usable building component.  By the end of the article, Burry brings the discussion full-circle and talks about the ability for the model to become a prototype.  The terms matter less than the idea that a new form of design testing is emerging, which ironically adds to the complexity of the design process.  The new process is good, though, because it makes for a well-informed, high-quality end product.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Grossju - Project 006

I had lots of issues building project 006.  My initial plans were to set two parameters changing an underlying surface which a grid of points would be project onto, connect those points to form faces, and then drive another variable with the area of those faces.  This didn't work as planned.

Chart of Parameters

The initial tile worked fine.  The area of each triangulated face is reduced by the "area reduction" variable, converted to the correct unit, and then multiplied by a simply multiplier.

Unfortunately, as the tile was powercopied, each subsequent powercopy used the areas of the two original faces rather than their own.  I understood this to mean that powercopies cannot reference anything outside of themselves, and a measure item works outside of objects that they reference.  

After referencing the 4 corner points, the powercopy dialog box asks for an area tag which is unavailable to each specific face. 


The extrusion formula

In order to both simplify things and create a working model, I removed any references to areas and set a new extrusion parameter to 1ft.  While building a new model, however, some of the faces were not working properly.

Broken faces

After several attempts at repair, I found that any face set at an angle over 90 degrees in either the X or Y direction would not function.  Therefor, I rebuilt a simple surface to always climb uphill.






Extrusion along face normals
\




Grossju - Project 006 Reading Response

Spuybroek states a loaded and controversial thesis statement in this reading, claiming that “as all craft moves toward design, all labor must move toward robotics.”  Good design, in Spuybroek’s mind, is work that offers both continuity and variation.  The hand produces infinite variation, but virtually no continuity, whereas a process such as industrial casting produces continuity without variation.  The computer, and specifically digital computing, is the proper bridge between the two.  The code, as presented in this text, allows designers to “establish a type of formation that is neither completely abstract nor completely organic.”  In other words, a product can be produced that has an embedded global structure or logic, but also contains flexibility and allowance for change.


Though I originally thought that Spuybroek’s statements were absurd, I no longer disagree with him.  I do agree that good design straddles cohesion and variation.  The idea that all labor must move toward robotics is a bit problematic for me, however, because it relies on the decontextualization of a design project.  Spuybroek is talking about looking at something as an object in the present moment.  I tend to believe that there is beauty to be found in an object by knowing its history – that its imperfections are created from human flaw – as opposed to any variations precisely and intentionally scripted to appear so.